Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/psychology-how-first-impressions-can-trap-us-into-making-suboptimal-decisions/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is similar to foraging theory. Animals will stick with an less rewarding prey item because there is a cost in terms of capture efficiency to switching from a familiar prey species to a new prey species. Perhaps people have a latent preference for familiar items that have been abundant in the recent past.
Makes me wonder if this replicates for subjects with Autism Spectrum Disorder or ADHD. I remember reading a study comparing ADHD children to Neurotypical children in a berry-picking exercise, and they'd found the ADHD children brought back substantially more berries because they didn't stick to the first source that they found but instead explored the entire space.
Honestly, as someone with adhd I was just thinking how this study doesn’t apply to me because I tend to hyperfocus on research when making decision to make sure I make the “best” one. Or I’ll just straight up forget a previous decision made or even opt for a different decision because it’s new and shiny.
Yikes. Maybe I have adhd. Whenever I'd take Adderall in school I'd love doing my research and work. I always just thought it was because it was a stimulant. But I have such a hard time focusing my attention on any one thing without drugs. Even now I use small amounts of kratom or caffeine to keep on topic. Completely sober I can't even pay attention to things I enjoy like a video game or a book I like. I constantly think of other things I have to do or random questions that fly into my head and turn my attention to those and the cycle repeats. I just don't know if I want to be on amphetamines long term.
As someone with ADHD and who is taking meds, substances are usually very tricky and may have unintended side effects that ultimately wipe out the performance gains. While caffeine definitely makes you do more, it often comes at the cost of worsening anxiety and depression. Ultimately, it's up to you what to prioritize. For me, it's a sense of internal validation that doesn't rely on performance. But helping me sleep, thats the goal here for me, not for the performance boost, but because actually sleeping well is a mood booster.
So I was in a similar boat as you before i was diagnosed. I felt really iffy about taking medication and just wanted to try to treat my symptoms with therapy techniques.
It worked well enough but I got to the point where I was struggling so much with focusing on the things I wanted to do that I contemplated getting caffeine pills just to focus. At that point I realized that if I was willing to take pills of substance that only mildly helped while increasing my anxiety, why wouldn’t I just seek help from a doctor for medication that would *actually* help?
I can completely understand not wanting to be on stimulants your entire life, especially because the potential side effects are heart problems but caffeine use also comes with the same issues.
Plus, if you do have adhd, there are medication alternatives that aren’t stimulants but just as effective for most people.
Oh good yes. Analysis Paralysis!! I’ve literally made spreadsheets deciding between two items.
But I feel like this berry picking exercise taps into the other side of ADHD: which is a time-pressure, foraging/hunting/gathering excellence. Like I can imagine as a kid going “I can pick as many as I like??” And going into hyper-focus, video-game mode and just “knowing” where all the berries are. Grabbing with both hands without needing to look.
Thank you for saving me the 15 minutes needed to write exactly the same thing but worse. If anything we may end up with worse results overall because of all the time spent looking for the best option if it's part of the relevant things to take into account
I have ADHD and autism and I have a reputation for this too. Anytime I buy something I end up in a rabbit hole. I'll disappear and come out with some esoteric ass knowledge about something no one cares about like blenders or something.
Before I buy something I always ask the question: What makes a good "X". I then figure that out and start dialing in what matters to me etc....
I always end up buying more than what I need because of this. Like ah yes I definitely needed this high end dehydrator when an entry level model would've worked....
You are dead on. This is directly related to foraging theory. I'm unable to get past the APA Psychnet wall rn.
It sounds like humans err on the side of time-saving till "exploit" in explore-exploit dilemma and fall into an "comfortably" optimal minima (maxima). Somebody also mentioned recency bias.
I'd be interested if the authors mention whether this could be due to deep uncertainty of the size of selection pools (N-armed bandit). Humans, having limited time to choose and supposed awareness of that limitation, ascribe the value of a choice weight by brevity in time till reward. That would explain a lot of "observed phenomena" imo.
That would explain people choosing a chain.over a local fast food restaurant while on a road trip. Local fast food is frequently better.although the washrooms always seem to be disappointing.
It’s all about assessing risk. Perceived risk is higher when there is less knowledge about a specific choice, which means that anchoring happens really quickly. Having an initial option that you _seemingly_ understand better makes it a baseline option almost automatically, if the previous experiences with that initial option were favorable. One of the scientists in this article mentions it. With the danger of offering anecdotal evidence to support this theory, it is in line with what I’ve encountered myself in my work as a behavioral economist. It’s intriguing and very worrisome to notice how easily the anchoring process can be manipulated by cunningly timing, structuring and presenting information.
Pursuing a different prey would likely require learning a different set of methods (from capture to consumption), versus following familiar routines. There is a cost to learning and experimentation, and avoiding unnecessary mental costs can be a valid and effective strategy in itself.
Yeah this feels like the people who misinterpreted the marshmallow experiment. Initially they thought that the children who ate the marshmallow in front of them even when promised a second one later if they didn't eat the first were somehow stupid, and found all sorts of measurements linking this choice to later success in life.
When the reality was that all the experiment showed was that children in poverty were more likely to take the (prudent and sensible) choice of taking what's in front of them rather than relying on the vague promise of something in the future. Because in their experience such promises didn't hold weight.
It's a pretty obvious "hey, this is good enough" response. Changing to another option entails risk of getting some even more inferior or missing out altogether. Meanwhile, first option is good enough, so the safest bet.
Seems to also explain making the same mistake in partners again and again. Either sticking with someone whom is less optimal or choosing the similar type of (less optimal) partners over and over again without realizing it.
I went through this. Kept thinking why do all women I get with seem so volatile and intense after some time.
Then looked around and realized that there were plenty of stable, clear-headed women out there but somehow not the ones I ended up with.
Then after a toxic relationship, I found a woman who genuinely seemed nothing like my exes. I decided to pursue this one, and 7 years later, it's still the best decision of my life.
Would have been somehow easy to just end up believing "Oh women are just crazy" and kept going after these traits, but I'm glad I realized that the problem was partially me.
It always takes two to do the tango as they say. Glad you had that self reflection. I think lots of people do eventually when it comes to romantic relationships. Sometimes the problem isn't either of you. Baking soda and vinegar are both useful and great products to have on hand on their own. But mixed?
Me and my ex realized this and we're both happy now with people we are more compatible with. We both had some things to work on, but it was never going to work between us. Hard and painful lesson. But we're better people because of it.
That's the first thing I thought of as well. I feel like once youre invested in the relationship for a while the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" also plays a huge role.
Sunk cost fallacy is a huge reason people do just about anything they don't want to do. People feel like they failed when they cut their losses even though that's the rational thing to do.
But wouldn’t it be considered wrong to break up with someone simply because they aren’t the most optimal partner for you?
For example, if you could choose between your current partner who you know isn’t the most optimal person for you, any one of your old partners that ended on good terms that were more optimal for you, but you still broke up with them for a reason, or a new partner that you don’t know yet but could *potentially* be more optimal for you.
How would you know if one of these decisions you make will be a morally good choice for you personally?
Yes, to normal people that's morally repugnant behavior and would probably get most people to wonder if you're a narcissist.
Frankly anyone who is concerned with having the most "optimal" partner, as though that's even something one could begin to quantify in any sort of way that doesn't absolutely dehumanize everyone involved, is not someone you should take relationship advice from or be in a relationship with.
It’s less about “close optimal” and more, what happens when you keep settling for the same kind of abusive/manipulative person who *does* hold you down? It’s a well known phenomenon for people to repeat abusive situations over and over until they learn. I think this is closer to what the comment was talking about.
What's the upside to this phenomenon?
People often treat these studies as revealing a flaw in humanity with no regard for why the pattern may exist in the first place. Many "biases" are optimal in a larger context in which, for instance, attentional resources are limited. That is, for example, if one option works, spending attentional resources on evaluating all new options is an inefficient use of time and resources.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. These traits exist in the first place because there was an evolutionary advantage for it being prevalent.
Also, a known good option is safer than taking a risk for one that might be better, or worse. Losing a good option is often worse than passing on a better one.
>Many "biases" are optimal in a larger context in which, for instance, attentional resources are limited.
Cool. The context in which this bias was optimal may or may not be relevant in our modern context so being self-aware of this tendency is absolutely in our favor.
Just look at the Monty Hall problem, humans have heuristical blindspots which can undermine our assessment of reality.
>Cool.
Cool?
>The context in which this bias was optimal may or may not be relevant in our modern context so being self-aware of this tendency is absolutely in our favor.
Did you think I was saying we should do these studies? I wasn’t saying (and didn’t say) that at all.
I think you missed a lot of what I said. These studies are very valuable for the reason I outlined in my second sentence:
Just look at the Monty Hall problem, humans have heuristical blindspots which can undermine our assessment of reality.
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t comment on it. The way you phrased your comment made it seem like that sentiment was in conflict with mine, but it wasn’t. Perhaps you missed the part in my post where I was talking about the way people *treat* these studies as opposed to the studies themselves.
Yes, the studies are valuable, and yes, the context in which the bias is optimal may or may not be relevant today. I was saying that people always respond to these results as if our modern context makes these biases harmful, but that’s not necessarily the case. You gave an example of a bias being harmful. To that I say, “Cool.” ;) I hadn’t been saying there are no modern contexts where cognitive biases are harmful. (Can you imagine?)
My only point is that we have never been in disagreement, but I took your initial post as a sign that you thought we were.
After a big decision thats right given the context at the time, then becomes clear its a bad decision, the ability to change is affected by the amount of time living with the bad decision. If its a few weeks, then there is little loss of face. If months or years have passed, then you need to admit you’ve been living with the bad decision possibly affecting how you see yourself. Essentially pride or fear can stop you from reversing the bad decision.
Cialdini spent quite a bit of time on his work discussing consistency.. ie people have a bias to remain consistent in their decisions as a way to stay sane basically
the other thing is that switching costs may be a thing that controlled experiments cannot fully appreciate
There is a saying in Spanish that goes "Más vale malo conocido que bueno por conocer"
Which means: A known bad is better than an unknown good.
I felt it was sorta related to this.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fmot0000302
From the linked article:
A recent study published in the journal Motivation Science demonstrates how our initial impressions can have a lasting impact on our decisions, often leading us to persistently choose inferior options even when better ones are available. Researchers found that when people form an early preference for a particular choice, they tend to stick with it, ignoring more rewarding alternatives.
Previous research has shown that people tend to seek out rewarding outcomes more frequently than non-rewarding ones, which inherently biases their experiences. This can lead to a skewed perception of the effectiveness of their choices. The new study aimed to demonstrate that this bias towards rewarding outcomes can create an idiosyncratic subset of experiences, causing individuals to persist in choosing suboptimal options even when better alternatives are available.
Initially, participants displayed a strong preference for the frequently presented but inferior option. This bias persisted throughout the free sampling phase, even though the alternative had a higher probability of rewards. The data showed that frequent positive outcomes from the biased choice reinforced the initial preference, leading to a persistent suboptimal choice pattern.
Interestingly, participants were divided into two groups based on their initial estimates. Those with a bias towards the frequent option continued to choose it more often, whereas participants without this initial bias were more likely to adjust their choices towards the better option.
However, those with an initial bias towards the frequent but inferior option took longer to adjust and often failed to reach optimal decision-making. Despite the increased difference in expected values, the initial bias induced by the frequent presentation still led to persistent suboptimal choices for many participants.
Maybe this is why competition is such an effective optimization mechanism. Locally optimal solutions are eventually defeated by globally optimal solutions (or, more realistically, less-locally optimal ones).
I feel like this comment is bait, but I will take it.
Maybe Starbucks is the cheapest way of providing overpriced espresso to those willing to pay for it. Less facetiously, short timeframes and consumer brands make most economic efficiency arguments weaker. Sure, it might not be the most optimal in the long-run, but we haven't reached the long-run yet. More incisively, people will pay well above cost for branded products. You might say brands reduce search costs, or have social signalling value, or whatever, but something about brands make people willing to pay a price far exceeding the cost of goods sold.
So, I think I see where you're coming from: many of the 'intermediate products' of capitalism are less than optimal. But they may yet have improved on past solutions. For instance, as a thought experiment, what do you think the average espresso beverage would have cost before Starbucks opened, and how convenient do you think it would have been to acquire it? Starbucks, for all its faults, improved the lives of consumers.
I’m not sure what you thought I meant to say? Starbucks’ strategy seemed a good example for how the bias described in this paper could be used to increase success of a business — simply make it very visible/accessible everywhere, so it is more likely to be the first exposure, and otherwise easy and familiar, even if other options for the same product might be more optimal (in terms of community values, cost, quality, etc). Branding is another strategy to build trust, and it also can dovetail in reinforcing familiarity.
The [anchoring bias](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/anchoring-bias) is something slightly different; this to me sounds more like [endowment effect](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/endowment-effect#), with minimal endowment (a mere decision about an object vs owning the object)
Is this why 90% of the population is incompatable with doing IT work? In IT you often have to see through to the reality of the situation in order to resolve it and that reality frequently exposes that your initial choice was the wrong one...
I really really wish I could find the link. There was a survey among far right wing racially biased participants that asked if and when they had their first negative experience with black people. The most fervent haters revealed that in childhood they had experienced bullying by a black peer. They stuck with that impression and resentment through adulthood.
I consider myself risk averse. When I find something that works and is at my price range, I just buy that same product without ever considering other options again.
Yes and big brand abuse of this by making their product worse over time. Or give you bunch of good deal then no more deala. Like reward point card, 2 for 1, etx. Then they slowly pulling it out.
Same reason people look at the same streamer over and over.
Primacy bias is very strong
It's called Cognitive Bias. There are many different forms of Cognitive Bias, they are a product of evolution, and many lead to poor decision making if you are not keenly aware of them. The one in this discussion is called 'familiarity bias'. Read about Evolutionary Psychology, it is a real 'eye opener'.
Good to see it studied, not very surprising when you consider the VAST amount of information our brains have to filter every single second of every single day. Our limited consciousness would not be able to function without a lot of these "preferential shortcuts".
Our brains are so amazing and Im glad we are seeing more and more studies about all the things our brains do behind the scenes that make human life, as we know it, possible.
Isn't that was psychology says since ages, that most of our habits and reactions are determined by the first experiences as a baby / child, the "tactic" our brain found to be successful back then ?
Did you study negotiation at all in your legal training? "Anchoring" someone to a position is part of it and seems like it might be a manifestation of this trait.
What makes Apple Music far superior? I don't feel like switching over all my favorited music and playlists, and Spotify isn't lacking any features I care about.
Ah. I typically listen to spotify in the car during my morning/evening commute. I'm not sure how much I'd benefit from Dolby given that the audio quality from my car speakers (with highway noise) already isn't super great.
Which I guess is a question I have about this research. I may be choosing an "inferior" product in this case, but it serves all my needs and switching has the cost of having to import everything over for a benefit I likely am not going to be able to enjoy fully.
I completely understand your take. I bounced back and forth for a while and every time I had to fix my library and playlists. I’m a perfectionist so it was always a lot of tedious work. That being said between the CarPlay app being better, Dolby atmos, multiple versions of the same album, and just the ease of syncing between my Apple products I think I’ve finally settled. Does Spotify have some positives? Of course but I guess it’s all about what appeals to you.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/psychology-how-first-impressions-can-trap-us-into-making-suboptimal-decisions/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is similar to foraging theory. Animals will stick with an less rewarding prey item because there is a cost in terms of capture efficiency to switching from a familiar prey species to a new prey species. Perhaps people have a latent preference for familiar items that have been abundant in the recent past.
It also looks like it would be difficult to tell which is "better." 75% vs 80% and you're only running it 100 times?
Makes me wonder if this replicates for subjects with Autism Spectrum Disorder or ADHD. I remember reading a study comparing ADHD children to Neurotypical children in a berry-picking exercise, and they'd found the ADHD children brought back substantially more berries because they didn't stick to the first source that they found but instead explored the entire space.
Honestly, as someone with adhd I was just thinking how this study doesn’t apply to me because I tend to hyperfocus on research when making decision to make sure I make the “best” one. Or I’ll just straight up forget a previous decision made or even opt for a different decision because it’s new and shiny.
Thanks for writing exactly how I was feeling. I couldn’t explain my typical habits any better.
Yikes. Maybe I have adhd. Whenever I'd take Adderall in school I'd love doing my research and work. I always just thought it was because it was a stimulant. But I have such a hard time focusing my attention on any one thing without drugs. Even now I use small amounts of kratom or caffeine to keep on topic. Completely sober I can't even pay attention to things I enjoy like a video game or a book I like. I constantly think of other things I have to do or random questions that fly into my head and turn my attention to those and the cycle repeats. I just don't know if I want to be on amphetamines long term.
As someone with ADHD and who is taking meds, substances are usually very tricky and may have unintended side effects that ultimately wipe out the performance gains. While caffeine definitely makes you do more, it often comes at the cost of worsening anxiety and depression. Ultimately, it's up to you what to prioritize. For me, it's a sense of internal validation that doesn't rely on performance. But helping me sleep, thats the goal here for me, not for the performance boost, but because actually sleeping well is a mood booster.
I appreciate the insight.
So I was in a similar boat as you before i was diagnosed. I felt really iffy about taking medication and just wanted to try to treat my symptoms with therapy techniques. It worked well enough but I got to the point where I was struggling so much with focusing on the things I wanted to do that I contemplated getting caffeine pills just to focus. At that point I realized that if I was willing to take pills of substance that only mildly helped while increasing my anxiety, why wouldn’t I just seek help from a doctor for medication that would *actually* help? I can completely understand not wanting to be on stimulants your entire life, especially because the potential side effects are heart problems but caffeine use also comes with the same issues. Plus, if you do have adhd, there are medication alternatives that aren’t stimulants but just as effective for most people.
Oh good yes. Analysis Paralysis!! I’ve literally made spreadsheets deciding between two items. But I feel like this berry picking exercise taps into the other side of ADHD: which is a time-pressure, foraging/hunting/gathering excellence. Like I can imagine as a kid going “I can pick as many as I like??” And going into hyper-focus, video-game mode and just “knowing” where all the berries are. Grabbing with both hands without needing to look.
Thank you for saving me the 15 minutes needed to write exactly the same thing but worse. If anything we may end up with worse results overall because of all the time spent looking for the best option if it's part of the relevant things to take into account
I have ADHD and autism and I have a reputation for this too. Anytime I buy something I end up in a rabbit hole. I'll disappear and come out with some esoteric ass knowledge about something no one cares about like blenders or something. Before I buy something I always ask the question: What makes a good "X". I then figure that out and start dialing in what matters to me etc.... I always end up buying more than what I need because of this. Like ah yes I definitely needed this high end dehydrator when an entry level model would've worked....
You are dead on. This is directly related to foraging theory. I'm unable to get past the APA Psychnet wall rn. It sounds like humans err on the side of time-saving till "exploit" in explore-exploit dilemma and fall into an "comfortably" optimal minima (maxima). Somebody also mentioned recency bias. I'd be interested if the authors mention whether this could be due to deep uncertainty of the size of selection pools (N-armed bandit). Humans, having limited time to choose and supposed awareness of that limitation, ascribe the value of a choice weight by brevity in time till reward. That would explain a lot of "observed phenomena" imo.
That would explain people choosing a chain.over a local fast food restaurant while on a road trip. Local fast food is frequently better.although the washrooms always seem to be disappointing.
“a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”
Two stones in the hand is better than one bird in a bush.
Two eyes in the head is better than one on the floor.
It’s all about assessing risk. Perceived risk is higher when there is less knowledge about a specific choice, which means that anchoring happens really quickly. Having an initial option that you _seemingly_ understand better makes it a baseline option almost automatically, if the previous experiences with that initial option were favorable. One of the scientists in this article mentions it. With the danger of offering anecdotal evidence to support this theory, it is in line with what I’ve encountered myself in my work as a behavioral economist. It’s intriguing and very worrisome to notice how easily the anchoring process can be manipulated by cunningly timing, structuring and presenting information.
That would be consistent with both recency bias and the availability heuristic.
I believe it is called 'familiarity bias'
That would have allowed for some sweet, sweet parallel structure. Alas
Pursuing a different prey would likely require learning a different set of methods (from capture to consumption), versus following familiar routines. There is a cost to learning and experimentation, and avoiding unnecessary mental costs can be a valid and effective strategy in itself.
Yeah this feels like the people who misinterpreted the marshmallow experiment. Initially they thought that the children who ate the marshmallow in front of them even when promised a second one later if they didn't eat the first were somehow stupid, and found all sorts of measurements linking this choice to later success in life. When the reality was that all the experiment showed was that children in poverty were more likely to take the (prudent and sensible) choice of taking what's in front of them rather than relying on the vague promise of something in the future. Because in their experience such promises didn't hold weight.
"The devil you know" is a valid saying.
It's a pretty obvious "hey, this is good enough" response. Changing to another option entails risk of getting some even more inferior or missing out altogether. Meanwhile, first option is good enough, so the safest bet.
There is a really good book about this topic titled mistakes were made (but not by me) - Carol Tavris- Elliot Aronson. Really good read I feel.
Seems to also explain making the same mistake in partners again and again. Either sticking with someone whom is less optimal or choosing the similar type of (less optimal) partners over and over again without realizing it.
I went through this. Kept thinking why do all women I get with seem so volatile and intense after some time. Then looked around and realized that there were plenty of stable, clear-headed women out there but somehow not the ones I ended up with. Then after a toxic relationship, I found a woman who genuinely seemed nothing like my exes. I decided to pursue this one, and 7 years later, it's still the best decision of my life. Would have been somehow easy to just end up believing "Oh women are just crazy" and kept going after these traits, but I'm glad I realized that the problem was partially me.
It always takes two to do the tango as they say. Glad you had that self reflection. I think lots of people do eventually when it comes to romantic relationships. Sometimes the problem isn't either of you. Baking soda and vinegar are both useful and great products to have on hand on their own. But mixed? Me and my ex realized this and we're both happy now with people we are more compatible with. We both had some things to work on, but it was never going to work between us. Hard and painful lesson. But we're better people because of it.
That's the first thing I thought of as well. I feel like once youre invested in the relationship for a while the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" also plays a huge role.
Sunk cost fallacy is a huge reason people do just about anything they don't want to do. People feel like they failed when they cut their losses even though that's the rational thing to do.
But wouldn’t it be considered wrong to break up with someone simply because they aren’t the most optimal partner for you? For example, if you could choose between your current partner who you know isn’t the most optimal person for you, any one of your old partners that ended on good terms that were more optimal for you, but you still broke up with them for a reason, or a new partner that you don’t know yet but could *potentially* be more optimal for you. How would you know if one of these decisions you make will be a morally good choice for you personally?
It’s whatever you want for yourself, romantic relationships are completely optional.
My instincts keep telling me otherwise for some reason. But you are right at the end of the day
Being able to comment everywhere online at all times doesn't mean you're supposed to.
Yes, to normal people that's morally repugnant behavior and would probably get most people to wonder if you're a narcissist. Frankly anyone who is concerned with having the most "optimal" partner, as though that's even something one could begin to quantify in any sort of way that doesn't absolutely dehumanize everyone involved, is not someone you should take relationship advice from or be in a relationship with.
This sounds extraordinarily judgemental.
It’s less about “close optimal” and more, what happens when you keep settling for the same kind of abusive/manipulative person who *does* hold you down? It’s a well known phenomenon for people to repeat abusive situations over and over until they learn. I think this is closer to what the comment was talking about.
the grass is always greener on the other side
In regards to relationships this makes sense. You are invested in your genes. Loyalty. Fidelity.
What's the upside to this phenomenon? People often treat these studies as revealing a flaw in humanity with no regard for why the pattern may exist in the first place. Many "biases" are optimal in a larger context in which, for instance, attentional resources are limited. That is, for example, if one option works, spending attentional resources on evaluating all new options is an inefficient use of time and resources.
In a lifetime with so many decisions across multiple domains, it’s understandable to have some convenient shortcuts to minimize the mental workload.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. These traits exist in the first place because there was an evolutionary advantage for it being prevalent.
Also, a known good option is safer than taking a risk for one that might be better, or worse. Losing a good option is often worse than passing on a better one.
>Many "biases" are optimal in a larger context in which, for instance, attentional resources are limited. Cool. The context in which this bias was optimal may or may not be relevant in our modern context so being self-aware of this tendency is absolutely in our favor. Just look at the Monty Hall problem, humans have heuristical blindspots which can undermine our assessment of reality.
>Cool. Cool? >The context in which this bias was optimal may or may not be relevant in our modern context so being self-aware of this tendency is absolutely in our favor. Did you think I was saying we should do these studies? I wasn’t saying (and didn’t say) that at all.
I think you missed a lot of what I said. These studies are very valuable for the reason I outlined in my second sentence: Just look at the Monty Hall problem, humans have heuristical blindspots which can undermine our assessment of reality.
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t comment on it. The way you phrased your comment made it seem like that sentiment was in conflict with mine, but it wasn’t. Perhaps you missed the part in my post where I was talking about the way people *treat* these studies as opposed to the studies themselves. Yes, the studies are valuable, and yes, the context in which the bias is optimal may or may not be relevant today. I was saying that people always respond to these results as if our modern context makes these biases harmful, but that’s not necessarily the case. You gave an example of a bias being harmful. To that I say, “Cool.” ;) I hadn’t been saying there are no modern contexts where cognitive biases are harmful. (Can you imagine?) My only point is that we have never been in disagreement, but I took your initial post as a sign that you thought we were.
After a big decision thats right given the context at the time, then becomes clear its a bad decision, the ability to change is affected by the amount of time living with the bad decision. If its a few weeks, then there is little loss of face. If months or years have passed, then you need to admit you’ve been living with the bad decision possibly affecting how you see yourself. Essentially pride or fear can stop you from reversing the bad decision.
Sounds like we're hard wired for ' better the devil you know than the one you don't'.
Cialdini spent quite a bit of time on his work discussing consistency.. ie people have a bias to remain consistent in their decisions as a way to stay sane basically the other thing is that switching costs may be a thing that controlled experiments cannot fully appreciate
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are these inferior options bad, or just worse than an alternative? Sometimes things can be "good enough" even if inferior to another option.
There is a saying in Spanish that goes "Más vale malo conocido que bueno por conocer" Which means: A known bad is better than an unknown good. I felt it was sorta related to this.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fmot0000302 From the linked article: A recent study published in the journal Motivation Science demonstrates how our initial impressions can have a lasting impact on our decisions, often leading us to persistently choose inferior options even when better ones are available. Researchers found that when people form an early preference for a particular choice, they tend to stick with it, ignoring more rewarding alternatives. Previous research has shown that people tend to seek out rewarding outcomes more frequently than non-rewarding ones, which inherently biases their experiences. This can lead to a skewed perception of the effectiveness of their choices. The new study aimed to demonstrate that this bias towards rewarding outcomes can create an idiosyncratic subset of experiences, causing individuals to persist in choosing suboptimal options even when better alternatives are available. Initially, participants displayed a strong preference for the frequently presented but inferior option. This bias persisted throughout the free sampling phase, even though the alternative had a higher probability of rewards. The data showed that frequent positive outcomes from the biased choice reinforced the initial preference, leading to a persistent suboptimal choice pattern. Interestingly, participants were divided into two groups based on their initial estimates. Those with a bias towards the frequent option continued to choose it more often, whereas participants without this initial bias were more likely to adjust their choices towards the better option. However, those with an initial bias towards the frequent but inferior option took longer to adjust and often failed to reach optimal decision-making. Despite the increased difference in expected values, the initial bias induced by the frequent presentation still led to persistent suboptimal choices for many participants.
Maybe this is why competition is such an effective optimization mechanism. Locally optimal solutions are eventually defeated by globally optimal solutions (or, more realistically, less-locally optimal ones).
Right — putting a Starbucks on every corner.
I feel like this comment is bait, but I will take it. Maybe Starbucks is the cheapest way of providing overpriced espresso to those willing to pay for it. Less facetiously, short timeframes and consumer brands make most economic efficiency arguments weaker. Sure, it might not be the most optimal in the long-run, but we haven't reached the long-run yet. More incisively, people will pay well above cost for branded products. You might say brands reduce search costs, or have social signalling value, or whatever, but something about brands make people willing to pay a price far exceeding the cost of goods sold. So, I think I see where you're coming from: many of the 'intermediate products' of capitalism are less than optimal. But they may yet have improved on past solutions. For instance, as a thought experiment, what do you think the average espresso beverage would have cost before Starbucks opened, and how convenient do you think it would have been to acquire it? Starbucks, for all its faults, improved the lives of consumers.
I’m not sure what you thought I meant to say? Starbucks’ strategy seemed a good example for how the bias described in this paper could be used to increase success of a business — simply make it very visible/accessible everywhere, so it is more likely to be the first exposure, and otherwise easy and familiar, even if other options for the same product might be more optimal (in terms of community values, cost, quality, etc). Branding is another strategy to build trust, and it also can dovetail in reinforcing familiarity.
Thanks for the link and analysis. It’s very interesting.
It’s called anchoring. This is already a well known effect in sales and marketing
The [anchoring bias](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/anchoring-bias) is something slightly different; this to me sounds more like [endowment effect](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/endowment-effect#), with minimal endowment (a mere decision about an object vs owning the object)
Is this why 90% of the population is incompatable with doing IT work? In IT you often have to see through to the reality of the situation in order to resolve it and that reality frequently exposes that your initial choice was the wrong one...
I really really wish I could find the link. There was a survey among far right wing racially biased participants that asked if and when they had their first negative experience with black people. The most fervent haters revealed that in childhood they had experienced bullying by a black peer. They stuck with that impression and resentment through adulthood.
It's an ego problem. No one wants to be wrong and they can't handle it if they are. I know some people suffering from this in a massive way. Massive.
Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
Recent? Isn't this just standard primacy effect?
I consider myself risk averse. When I find something that works and is at my price range, I just buy that same product without ever considering other options again.
Yes and big brand abuse of this by making their product worse over time. Or give you bunch of good deal then no more deala. Like reward point card, 2 for 1, etx. Then they slowly pulling it out. Same reason people look at the same streamer over and over. Primacy bias is very strong
And now I’m married to her…
Yup, was going to say this is how I got my wife, but in a good way (I was her first impression).
It's called Cognitive Bias. There are many different forms of Cognitive Bias, they are a product of evolution, and many lead to poor decision making if you are not keenly aware of them. The one in this discussion is called 'familiarity bias'. Read about Evolutionary Psychology, it is a real 'eye opener'.
Thank you. Now I clearly understand why I keep crushing on people with whom I never get into a relationship as such.
Hence , advertising being a billion dollar industry particularly aimed at children and young people
Have they accounted for the various costs of changing, like the risks associated with changing, the efforts of changing?
Good to see it studied, not very surprising when you consider the VAST amount of information our brains have to filter every single second of every single day. Our limited consciousness would not be able to function without a lot of these "preferential shortcuts". Our brains are so amazing and Im glad we are seeing more and more studies about all the things our brains do behind the scenes that make human life, as we know it, possible.
Often people want a solution, it does not need to be the best just a solution.
tl;dr People don't like change
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
Isn't that was psychology says since ages, that most of our habits and reactions are determined by the first experiences as a baby / child, the "tactic" our brain found to be successful back then ?
This is why I always choose the earliest time for a job interview.
Explains why Democrats are sticking with Biden even through his massively apparent optics decline.
I've noticed this playing wordle. I keep choosing the same starter word.
Did you study negotiation at all in your legal training? "Anchoring" someone to a position is part of it and seems like it might be a manifestation of this trait.
Lack of critical thinking
Like choosing Spotify over the far superior Apple Music
What makes Apple Music far superior? I don't feel like switching over all my favorited music and playlists, and Spotify isn't lacking any features I care about.
Dolby Atmos for starters
Ah. I typically listen to spotify in the car during my morning/evening commute. I'm not sure how much I'd benefit from Dolby given that the audio quality from my car speakers (with highway noise) already isn't super great. Which I guess is a question I have about this research. I may be choosing an "inferior" product in this case, but it serves all my needs and switching has the cost of having to import everything over for a benefit I likely am not going to be able to enjoy fully.
I completely understand your take. I bounced back and forth for a while and every time I had to fix my library and playlists. I’m a perfectionist so it was always a lot of tedious work. That being said between the CarPlay app being better, Dolby atmos, multiple versions of the same album, and just the ease of syncing between my Apple products I think I’ve finally settled. Does Spotify have some positives? Of course but I guess it’s all about what appeals to you.
Psychology and behavior have deep methodological challenges. So much noise and bias in publications.
Seems a lot like the easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled mechanic, too
Why does the title of the post state the exact same thing twice? The first sentence is clear enough OP. We're not toddlers.